7 ms·

> Therefore, it came about that the liberal movement of our time has been cast largely in the mold of economic liberalism which makes its parallelism to the Jac

> Therefore, it came about that the liberal movement of our time has been cast largely in the mold of economic liberalism which makes its parallelism to the Jacksonian era more obvious, although none the less real, than its parallel to the Jeffersonian liberalism. This is what happened in Australia. The political party named "The Liberal Party" are conservatives traditionally interested in economic liberalism. Kind of the opposite of the meaning in the US - although this article points to a period in time when the meaning was changing.

gumby 3y ago
Australia's use of the term is common around the world. It's the US that's the odd man out.
- runarberg 3y ago
  In my (West Coast US) circles the word ‘Liberal Democrat’ is taken to mean an economically right wing but socially left wing. To my immigrant ears I’ve always taken it to be a right wing term. Democrats also come in the conservative flavor, where they are not only economically right wing but also crony capitalists. Joe Manchin is an example of a conservative democrat while Gavin Newsom is an example of a liberal democrat (Joe Biden is somewhere between them). In my circles we consider both liberal democrats and conservative democrats to be bad (though conservative democrats are significantly worse; and any kind of republicans are infinitely worse). We also have progressive democrats which we—most of the time—consider good.
- kome 3y ago
  exactly. liberalism is right wing. but just to confuse the waters, i would say that Americans liberals are indeed right wing, by global standards.
  - medo-bear 3y ago
    [flagged]
  - simonh 3y ago
    The old meaning of liberal in the US has been superseded by neoliberal. I the UK we went from Whighs (economically liberal) versus Tories (land owning coservative), then Liberals versus Tories, then Labour (socialist) versus Conservatives/Tories (economically liberal). I suppose the transition of liberalism into establishments party was part of the process of business becoming the establishment.
    - albelfio 3y ago
      Time brings regulation. Liberalism is maybe a reaction to that trend.
      - flagrant_taco 3y ago
        Power brings regulation. Time doesn't really have anything to do with it as far as I can tell, other than the fact that we seem to be quick to create rules and slow to remove them.
  - twelvechairs 3y ago
    Liberalism is right wing economically and left wing socially. At least in the 19th and early 20th century sense. Today it depends where you are
    - edgyquant 3y ago
      No Liberalism takes no stance on social issues as the liberal idea is that isn’t something the government should regulate, full stop.
      - zajio1am 3y ago
        One of the foundational text of liberalism, 'On Liberty' from J. S. Mill, is pretty clear that the threat to individual liberty is not just from the government, but from the society itself: Like other tyrannies, the tyranny of the majority was at first, and is still vulgarly, held in dread, chiefly as operating through the acts of the public authorities. But reflecting persons perceived that when society is itself the tyrant - society collectively, over the separate individuals who compose it - its means of tyrannising are not restricted to the acts which it may do by the hands of its political functionaries. Society can and does execute its own mandates: and if it issues wrong mandates instead of right, or any mandates at all in things with which it ought not to meddle, it practises a social tyranny more formidable than many kinds of political oppression, since, though not usually upheld by such extreme penalties, it leaves fewer means of escape, penetrating much more deeply into the details of life, and enslaving the soul itself. Protection, therefore, against the tyranny of the magistrate is not enough: there needs protection also against the tyranny of the prevailing opinion and feeling; against the tendency of society to impose, by other means than civil penalties, its own ideas and practices as rules of conduct on those who dissent from them; to fetter the development, and, if possible, prevent the formation, of any individuality not in harmony with its ways, and compel all characters to fashion themselves upon the model of its own.
      - twelvechairs 3y ago
        No that's left wing socially. > the liberal idea is that isn’t something the government should regulate, full stop. This is true but opposite to right wing socially which is traditional class, religion in government, gender roles, ethnocentrism etc. Most of the 19th century was liberalism opposed to conservatives on these issues (in Europe it was a lot of removing power from religion and a historic ruling class).
  - kemotep 3y ago
    I think it’s more that a one (or even 2) axis political alignment chart is overly simplistic. The article lays out a definition of liberalism that is in opposition to communism and fascism so there is the very least a “triangle” of political alignment is necessary.
  - pmoriarty 3y ago
    > Americans liberals are indeed right wing, by global standards. Are being pro-choice, against segregation, for protection of the enviornment, and for protecting the rights of women, people who identify as LBGTQ, and other minorities considered right wing positions, by global standards?
    - Hounddog11 3y ago
      No, but those are social issues. The American "liberal" establishment is generally right-wing by global standards, or least by Western standards, when it comes to economic issues. Bernie Sanders gets called "far left" or "socialist", but if he lived in Europe he'd be considered a pretty run-of-the-mill centre-left liberal.
      - pmoriarty 3y ago
        So do the left and right wing do not have positions on social issues in Europe?
        zajio1am 3y ago
        Different left wing and right wing parties have different positions on social issues, and these are unrelated to their position on left-right economic axis. Here in Czechia, the most socially conservative party are christian democrats, who are center-left on economic issues, another very socially conservative party here is the (far-left) communist party,
      - edgyquant 3y ago
        >Bernie Sanders gets called "far left" or "socialist", but if he lived in Europe he'd be considered a pretty run-of-the-mill centre-left liberal. Bernie Sanders views on healthcare and taxation would not be considered center in Europe. You’re repeating a ridiculous meme. Are you American?
        runarberg 3y ago
        In Europe we would actually call him a ‘Social Democrat’, albeit a left leaning social democrat. Social Democratic parties are really popular in Europe. I think of them people that are really into equality (though not always when it comes to immigrants, refugees, and climate policy) but also favor capitalism. Bernie Sanders actually goes further in his social policies than many run-of-the-mill social democrats in Europe, which is why he would be left leaning. I consider Social Democracy to be a rather confused ideology. But in Europe it is immensely popular. What is probably different is that capitalism is extremely popular in Europe, and in many ways Europe goes harder on free markets than even the USA, even trying to solve the climate crises with some capitalistic cap-and-trade scheme (Americans can think of western Europe as an extreme version of California). In the USA, capitalism is only popular among the rich (and subsequently politicians). Politicians on both sides of the aisle are more focused on social issues (as are voters) so capitalism remains an unasked question when it comes to the polls. When you talk to a random economically informed working class person in Europe, chances are they favor capitalism. In America however (at least on the West Coast where I live) you’d be hard pressed to find a working class person that likes capitalism. However in the USA the social issues are so glaring that most voters seem to be OK with voting for a capitalist just to prevent a fascist getting power. In Europe this would be unthinkable. This is why it is actually a bit confusing to put Bernie Sanders on the European political spectrum, because in Europe he actually would be a run-of-the-mill politician (albeit a bit left). In the USA, he is spectacular.
  - flagrant_taco 3y ago
    The left/right split itself doesn't really hold up in the US. We've seemed to decide to redefine that divide to directly map to political parties, with Democrats being the left and Republicans being the right. To me both parties look very much the same though. Both parties are fine spending trillions in deficit each year, both have championed foreign wars, both push policies to grow the government, both have parties have been terrible with regards to human rights at the border. Sure they debate specific policies, but even then it's often a debate of where to draw the line rather than whether it should be drawn at all.
    - kemotep 3y ago
      Could you please elaborate on that last paragraph? Some of those differences in specific policies seem incredibly significant in their outcomes. To say they are meaningless seems a little reductive if not completely false. A great example would be LGBT rights. Republicans broadly support stripping these rights and protections from discrimination away and Democrats do not. That is profound difference in existence for LGBT people if one party’s policy goals are implemented versus another. Even if on every other topic they are in agreement but this one, that is still a significant difference in my opinion.
      - ndsipa_pomu 3y ago
        My opinion is that LGBT rights shouldn't be considered a political position, but is simply an extension of human rights. Politicians should never be getting involved in people's private lives unless there are people being significantly harmed by it. It seems that it's largely "religious" people that seek to impose restrictions on how other people live their lives and that's been demonstrated by several wars between religions to be incompatible with multi-cultural societies. Obviously, I don't believe that there should be any intersection between religions and politics, or at least if religions get involved in politics, then they should lose any protections that other religions get and be taxed like other businesses.
        Gibbon1 3y ago
        I don't know what it is but authoritarians are really focus on imposing a system on people. Where women are chattel and any exhibition of sexual agency is severely punished. Men can have agency but any deviation from a very limited dominant sexuality is also punished severely. And men are required to jump through a bunch of hopes to prove themselves worthy of sex. One notes that communists, fascists, religious fundamentalists, and absolute monarchists, are all like that. So it's political in that regard.

gumby 3y ago

Australia's use of the term is common around the world. It's the US that's the odd man out.

runarberg 3y ago
In my (West Coast US) circles the word ‘Liberal Democrat’ is taken to mean an economically right wing but socially left wing. To my immigrant ears I’ve always taken it to be a right wing term. Democrats also come in the conservative flavor, where they are not only economically right wing but also crony capitalists. Joe Manchin is an example of a conservative democrat while Gavin Newsom is an example of a liberal democrat (Joe Biden is somewhere between them). In my circles we consider both liberal democrats and conservative democrats to be bad (though conservative democrats are significantly worse; and any kind of republicans are infinitely worse). We also have progressive democrats which we—most of the time—consider good.
kome 3y ago
exactly. liberalism is right wing. but just to confuse the waters, i would say that Americans liberals are indeed right wing, by global standards.
- medo-bear 3y ago
  [flagged]
- simonh 3y ago
  The old meaning of liberal in the US has been superseded by neoliberal. I the UK we went from Whighs (economically liberal) versus Tories (land owning coservative), then Liberals versus Tories, then Labour (socialist) versus Conservatives/Tories (economically liberal). I suppose the transition of liberalism into establishments party was part of the process of business becoming the establishment.
  - albelfio 3y ago
    Time brings regulation. Liberalism is maybe a reaction to that trend.
    - flagrant_taco 3y ago
      Power brings regulation. Time doesn't really have anything to do with it as far as I can tell, other than the fact that we seem to be quick to create rules and slow to remove them.
- twelvechairs 3y ago
  Liberalism is right wing economically and left wing socially. At least in the 19th and early 20th century sense. Today it depends where you are
  - edgyquant 3y ago
    No Liberalism takes no stance on social issues as the liberal idea is that isn’t something the government should regulate, full stop.
    - zajio1am 3y ago
      One of the foundational text of liberalism, 'On Liberty' from J. S. Mill, is pretty clear that the threat to individual liberty is not just from the government, but from the society itself: Like other tyrannies, the tyranny of the majority was at first, and is still vulgarly, held in dread, chiefly as operating through the acts of the public authorities. But reflecting persons perceived that when society is itself the tyrant - society collectively, over the separate individuals who compose it - its means of tyrannising are not restricted to the acts which it may do by the hands of its political functionaries. Society can and does execute its own mandates: and if it issues wrong mandates instead of right, or any mandates at all in things with which it ought not to meddle, it practises a social tyranny more formidable than many kinds of political oppression, since, though not usually upheld by such extreme penalties, it leaves fewer means of escape, penetrating much more deeply into the details of life, and enslaving the soul itself. Protection, therefore, against the tyranny of the magistrate is not enough: there needs protection also against the tyranny of the prevailing opinion and feeling; against the tendency of society to impose, by other means than civil penalties, its own ideas and practices as rules of conduct on those who dissent from them; to fetter the development, and, if possible, prevent the formation, of any individuality not in harmony with its ways, and compel all characters to fashion themselves upon the model of its own.
    - twelvechairs 3y ago
      No that's left wing socially. > the liberal idea is that isn’t something the government should regulate, full stop. This is true but opposite to right wing socially which is traditional class, religion in government, gender roles, ethnocentrism etc. Most of the 19th century was liberalism opposed to conservatives on these issues (in Europe it was a lot of removing power from religion and a historic ruling class).
- kemotep 3y ago
  I think it’s more that a one (or even 2) axis political alignment chart is overly simplistic. The article lays out a definition of liberalism that is in opposition to communism and fascism so there is the very least a “triangle” of political alignment is necessary.
- pmoriarty 3y ago
  > Americans liberals are indeed right wing, by global standards. Are being pro-choice, against segregation, for protection of the enviornment, and for protecting the rights of women, people who identify as LBGTQ, and other minorities considered right wing positions, by global standards?
  - Hounddog11 3y ago
    No, but those are social issues. The American "liberal" establishment is generally right-wing by global standards, or least by Western standards, when it comes to economic issues. Bernie Sanders gets called "far left" or "socialist", but if he lived in Europe he'd be considered a pretty run-of-the-mill centre-left liberal.
    - pmoriarty 3y ago
      So do the left and right wing do not have positions on social issues in Europe?
      - zajio1am 3y ago
        Different left wing and right wing parties have different positions on social issues, and these are unrelated to their position on left-right economic axis. Here in Czechia, the most socially conservative party are christian democrats, who are center-left on economic issues, another very socially conservative party here is the (far-left) communist party,
    - edgyquant 3y ago
      >Bernie Sanders gets called "far left" or "socialist", but if he lived in Europe he'd be considered a pretty run-of-the-mill centre-left liberal. Bernie Sanders views on healthcare and taxation would not be considered center in Europe. You’re repeating a ridiculous meme. Are you American?
      - runarberg 3y ago
        In Europe we would actually call him a ‘Social Democrat’, albeit a left leaning social democrat. Social Democratic parties are really popular in Europe. I think of them people that are really into equality (though not always when it comes to immigrants, refugees, and climate policy) but also favor capitalism. Bernie Sanders actually goes further in his social policies than many run-of-the-mill social democrats in Europe, which is why he would be left leaning. I consider Social Democracy to be a rather confused ideology. But in Europe it is immensely popular. What is probably different is that capitalism is extremely popular in Europe, and in many ways Europe goes harder on free markets than even the USA, even trying to solve the climate crises with some capitalistic cap-and-trade scheme (Americans can think of western Europe as an extreme version of California). In the USA, capitalism is only popular among the rich (and subsequently politicians). Politicians on both sides of the aisle are more focused on social issues (as are voters) so capitalism remains an unasked question when it comes to the polls. When you talk to a random economically informed working class person in Europe, chances are they favor capitalism. In America however (at least on the West Coast where I live) you’d be hard pressed to find a working class person that likes capitalism. However in the USA the social issues are so glaring that most voters seem to be OK with voting for a capitalist just to prevent a fascist getting power. In Europe this would be unthinkable. This is why it is actually a bit confusing to put Bernie Sanders on the European political spectrum, because in Europe he actually would be a run-of-the-mill politician (albeit a bit left). In the USA, he is spectacular.
- flagrant_taco 3y ago
  The left/right split itself doesn't really hold up in the US. We've seemed to decide to redefine that divide to directly map to political parties, with Democrats being the left and Republicans being the right. To me both parties look very much the same though. Both parties are fine spending trillions in deficit each year, both have championed foreign wars, both push policies to grow the government, both have parties have been terrible with regards to human rights at the border. Sure they debate specific policies, but even then it's often a debate of where to draw the line rather than whether it should be drawn at all.
  - kemotep 3y ago
    Could you please elaborate on that last paragraph? Some of those differences in specific policies seem incredibly significant in their outcomes. To say they are meaningless seems a little reductive if not completely false. A great example would be LGBT rights. Republicans broadly support stripping these rights and protections from discrimination away and Democrats do not. That is profound difference in existence for LGBT people if one party’s policy goals are implemented versus another. Even if on every other topic they are in agreement but this one, that is still a significant difference in my opinion.
    - ndsipa_pomu 3y ago
      My opinion is that LGBT rights shouldn't be considered a political position, but is simply an extension of human rights. Politicians should never be getting involved in people's private lives unless there are people being significantly harmed by it. It seems that it's largely "religious" people that seek to impose restrictions on how other people live their lives and that's been demonstrated by several wars between religions to be incompatible with multi-cultural societies. Obviously, I don't believe that there should be any intersection between religions and politics, or at least if religions get involved in politics, then they should lose any protections that other religions get and be taxed like other businesses.
      - Gibbon1 3y ago
        I don't know what it is but authoritarians are really focus on imposing a system on people. Where women are chattel and any exhibition of sexual agency is severely punished. Men can have agency but any deviation from a very limited dominant sexuality is also punished severely. And men are required to jump through a bunch of hopes to prove themselves worthy of sex. One notes that communists, fascists, religious fundamentalists, and absolute monarchists, are all like that. So it's political in that regard.